simo simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: [...]
In several jurisdictions (e.g. the USA and many countries that it has negotiated with for "compatible laws"), copyright infringement is now a criminal offense: anyone can request that the state prosecute. The copyright holder never needs to be involved in the case.
Can you point me at proof of this claim?
In England, I'd point at Section 107A, Chapter VI "Remedies for Infringement", Part I "Copyright" of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (as amended) which states:
"It is the duty of every local weights and measures authority to enforce within their area the provisions of section 107." http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2250424
Section 107 is "Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles, &c."
So it's worse here than Ben Finney suggests: no-one need even request that the state prosecutes.
The only saving grace for us is that the above is written in our law, but has not yet been activated. However, I think that will only take a statement by a minister, not a full legislature vote, and I believe many state agencies are acting as if it has (as is their choice).
Agents even complain bitterly when they start trying to prosecute copiers and are told that a general public licence has been issued. See, for example, Gervase Markham's article in the Times last year: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/a... and follow-up at http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/02/trading_standards_follo...
So, in England, the free software gamekeepers are funding the proprietary poachers! This is part of a growing trend of establishment of private monopolies, a series of "New Enclosures", also covering such things as gene technology and private public spaces, which I have been speaking about publicly since 2004 at least.
We need to take a two-pronged approach: firstly, try to reverse this establishment; secondly, while it exists, use it to fund enforcement of free software licences (thereby diverting funds from BSA work).
[...] The idea not to release authorship publicly is to avoid getting bothered. But proof is needed to be able to get down wannabe fake owners.
However, no downstream licensee would be able to verify that they had permission to use/adapt/copy it, which could be a problem for them and would almost certainly have a "chilling effect" on use.
Hope that explains,